ORDER : (V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.) The petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent to withdraw the letter in C.No.26/PA/EOW/VNR/2024 dated 22.07.2024 sent to the second respondent and consequently, direct the second respondent to entertain documents covered by the release deed vide Document No.6114/2021 dated 12.11.2021 and for consequential orders. 2. The case of the petitioners is that their father, Late.Ayyapan, married one A.Jeyalakshmi. From the wedlock, they had two sons and two daughters. The sons are A.Venkatraman and A.Jeya Jothi Raja, who are the petitioners herein. The daughters are P.Pawnthai and S.Muthumari. According to the petitioners, their father, Ayyapan, had acquired several extents of property. He passed away on 10.09.2021. Thereafter, Tmt.Jeyalakshmi, wife of Ayyapan, executed two settlement deeds in favour of the daughters, Pawnthai and Muthumari. Tmt.Jeyalakshmi, the petitioners and the other sister, Pawnthai, also executed a settlement deed in favour of Muthumari. 3. With respect to the petitioners, Jeyalakshmi and the two sisters released their shares, which came to their hands by virtue of the death of Ayyapan by way of a release deed dated 12.11.2021. The petitioners have mutated the revenue records and they claim that they are in possession of the property. They proposed to alienate the property and applied for an encumbrance certificate for the said purpose. It is at that time, they came to know that the third respondent had written to the second respondent in C.No.26/PA/EOW/VNR/2024 dated 22.07.2024, calling upon the second respondent not to register any documents pertaining to the property, whose parent documents are Document Nos. 6614/2021, 3879/2021, 3880/2021 and 1204/2011. The petitioners were shocked to learn about this development and conducted an enquiry. It is at that stage, they came to know of the fact that an FIR had been registered by the third respondent in FIR No.5 of 2023 against their sister, Tmt.Muthumari, their brother-in-law, Subramanian and four others, for the alleged offences under Section 120B, 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. The offences arise out of collection of funds from the public for a jewellery shop, by name, Aarusha Gold Shop at Virudhunagar. 4. The offences arise out of collection of funds from the public for a jewellery shop, by name, Aarusha Gold Shop at Virudhunagar. 4. The petitioners state that they are not in any way connected with the said business and that there is no order of attachment passed either by a Judicial Magistrate or by the Special Court constituted under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act of 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'TNPID Act') or by the competent authority under the TNPID Act. Hence, the second respondent cannot act on a mere letter issued by the third respondent Police. 5. When the matter came up for admission, I directed the second and third respondents to go on record by way of an affidavit. 6. Mr.M.Karunanithi has filed a counter affidavit of the Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wing, Virudhunagar District, sworn on 25 th February, 2025. 7. The counter affidavit discloses that one Karuppasamy had lodged a complaint against Aarusha Gold and Diamond Jewellery on 11.09.2023. The counter proceeds that Karuppasamy had invested a sum of Rs.10,000/- every month towards a gold chit scheme being run by the concern of Aarusha Gold and Diamond Jewellery. The police acted immediately on the complaint and an FIR came to be registered. The counter affidavit further states that there are totally 31 accused in this case, out of which, 12 are financial establishments. The sixth accused in that case is one Future Generation Capital Private Limited, which was incorporated by Subramanian, the brother-in-law of the petitioners and Muthumari, the sister of the petitioners. The counter affidavit alleges that the petitioners too played a day-to-day role in the affairs of the financial establishment. It is further pleaded that the properties, which are the subject matter of this Writ Petition, were acquired by the deceased Ayyapan from and out of the funds that had been given by Muthumari and Subramanian and that they are all proceeds of crime. 8. The counter affidavit further states that proposals have been sent to the Government for attachment of the properties. According to the Inspector of Police, the total guideline value of all the properties, which is the subject matter of the Writ Petition, is Rs.1,84,89,443/-, whereas, the amount outstanding to the depositors is about Rs.123 Crores. 8. The counter affidavit further states that proposals have been sent to the Government for attachment of the properties. According to the Inspector of Police, the total guideline value of all the properties, which is the subject matter of the Writ Petition, is Rs.1,84,89,443/-, whereas, the amount outstanding to the depositors is about Rs.123 Crores. The counter affidavit states that one Shanmuganathan and Arunachalam, purchasers of the property from Muthumari, had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.16603 of 2024, challenging a refusal check slip issued by the Sub Registrar at Aruppukottai and that the said Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court on 28.01.2025. On these pleas, the third respondent seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition. 9. Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader representing the second respondent/Sub Registrar states that they have entered the objection that has been given by the Police in the encumbrance certificate and that they are only obeying the lawful orders of the Police and have no other role to play in the matter. 10. I heard Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu for the petitioner, Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate for the third respondent. 11. Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu places reliance upon three judgments of this Court. They are, (i) R.Madhupriya and another Vs. Inspector General of Registration and another, 2020 SCC OnLine Madras 20112 (ii) K.Arasu and others Vs. The Sub Registrar, Perunthurai, Erode District and another in W.P.No.30874 of 2018 dated 28.04.2022 (iii) Subramani Vs. Sub Registrar, Rasipuram and another, (2024) 3 MLJ 588. 12. Mr.M.Karunanithi cites the order passed in Shanmuganathan and another Vs. The Joint Sub Registrar, Aruppukottai and another in W.P. (MD).No.16603 of 2024 dated 28.01.2025 , in support of his plea. 13. I have carefully considered the submissions of all sides. 14. The FIR having been registered prior to 01.07.2024, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) would not be applicable. This is because in terms of Section 531(2) of BNSS, for any investigation, which is pending prior to the notification of BNSS, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 would have to be followed. 15. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973, the Police had the power to seize certain properties in terms of Section 102 of the said Code. That power has not been exercised in the present case. 15. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973, the Police had the power to seize certain properties in terms of Section 102 of the said Code. That power has not been exercised in the present case. As the alleged offences include Section 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, the Police could have exercised their powers under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance of 1944 and even that was not exercised in the present case. 16. The other option available to the Police was to get an order of attachment under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act of 1997. That too, as is clear from the counter affidavit, had not been adopted by the Police. Instead, the third respondent has addressed a letter to the second respondent, directing the second respondent not to register any documents pertaining to the document numbers set forth above. 17. Whether the Police have the power to issue such letters has been a subject matter of consideration in all the three cases cited by Mr.Thirunavukkarasu. 17.1. The Honourable Mr.Justice N.Anand Venkatesh in Madhupriya's case, had clearly held that there cannot be a direction by the Police to the Registration Department not to register documents. He further held that in case the Police wants to prevent a party from alienating any property, which they suspect to be proceeds of crime, they have to approach the Court or the competent authority under the relevant enactments and obtain orders of attachment. Going a step further, he had held that a letter issued by the Police should not be recorded in the encumbrance certificate, since it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Police to restrain the owners of the property dealing with the same. 17.2. The view expressed by Mr.Justice N.Anand Venkatesh was yet again echoed by the Honourable Mr.Justice V.Bharathidasan in W.P.No.30874 of 2018 dated 28.04.2022. Mr.Justice V.Bharathidasan was of the categorical view that the Investigating Agency has no power to direct the Registrar to refuse to register documents. 17.3. Considering all these aspects in Subramani's case, the Honourable Mr.Justice N.Sathish Kumar was of the view, that the practice of the Police officers issuing letters to the Sub Registrars asking them to refrain from registering documents, has to be deprecated. 17.3. Considering all these aspects in Subramani's case, the Honourable Mr.Justice N.Sathish Kumar was of the view, that the practice of the Police officers issuing letters to the Sub Registrars asking them to refrain from registering documents, has to be deprecated. Following the view in Madhupriya's case, the learned Judge had left it open to the Police to approach the Court or the competent authority and get orders of attachment. 18. These three authorities have clearly laid down the law that the Police officials do not possess jurisdiction to give directions to the Sub Registrar not to register documents. They certainly have the right to move the Court or competent authority and get orders of attachment to that effect. 19. The counter affidavit reveals that the Police may have given a proposal to the competent authority to attach the property. A proposal cannot be given the same status as an order of attachment passed by the competent authority. 20. It is here that Mr.Karunanithi places strong emphasis on the order passed by the Honourable Mr.Justice G.K.Ilanthiraiyan in W.P.(MD).No.16603 of 2024, Shanmuganathan and another Vs. The Joint Sub Registrar, Aruppukottai and another, dated 28.01.2025 21. A perusal of the order passed by Justice G.K.Ilanthiraiyan makes it clear that the writ petitioners before him were purchasers of the property from the 8 th accused, Muthumari. The issue whether the Police have the power to issue letters and thereby, restrain a Sub Registrar from registering the documents, was not gone into by the learned Judge. Hence, this judgment cannot be treated as a precedent for the purpose of holding that the Police have such powers. In fact, none of the judgments that have been referred to above were brought to the notice of the learned Judge, who dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the purchasers of the property from the 8 th accused. 22. In the light of the clear and categorical views expressed by this Court in the judgments discussed above, the Writ Petition is entitled to succeed. The letter issued by the third respondent Police to the second respondent/Sub Registrar will not have any effect with respect to registration of the documents to be presented by the writ petitioners. As held by Justice N.Anand Venkatesh in Madhupriya's case, the Sub Registrar shall delete the reference to the letter from the encumbrance certificate. The letter issued by the third respondent Police to the second respondent/Sub Registrar will not have any effect with respect to registration of the documents to be presented by the writ petitioners. As held by Justice N.Anand Venkatesh in Madhupriya's case, the Sub Registrar shall delete the reference to the letter from the encumbrance certificate. It is open to the third respondent to approach the appropriate authorities and seek for attachment of the properties. If such an attachment is ordered, the petitioners will always have a judicial recourse against such orders of attachment. The Police having not been vested with the power to attach the property by themselves or to restrain the Sub Registrar from receiving documents, the Writ Petition has to be allowed. 23. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.